I don't understand why certain skeptics take it upon themselves to be such nasty people. For example: "Then the site jumps into other crackpot ideas, like Tom

I don't understand why certain skeptics take it upon themselves to be such nasty people. For example: "Then the site jumps into other crackpot ideas, like Tom Gold’s abiogenic origin of petroleum (long ago falsified), and presents a list of 19th century naturalists who talked about dinosaurs because they allegedly made up their discoveries in order to promote evolution! Once again, this doofus is so ignorant of history that he has no idea that half that list consisted of devout individuals who were “creationists” and most of them worked on dinosaurs in a religious context. Not only that, but they were not trying to “prove evolution”—their work was done decades before Darwin’s book came out in 1859. Give this guy an “F” in history…." The primary point of this paragraph appears to insult the person being talked about. The paragraph doesn't actually say anything, it's just a summary peppered with insults. Furthermore, it's very unlikely to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with the author. It seems like there's a large part of the skeptic community that doesn't understand you can't be so purposelessly condescending and yet convince the unconvinced--especially when you're pretending to be some rational authority whilst being so foaming-at-the-mouth. Which is a shame, because skepticism is a fine cause.